About your Search

20120301
20120331
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
, they just completely lost it. and you and i were talking earlier that i remember a time when michael steele ran afoul of rush limbaugh and had to back off. they're not going to do that now. >> they can't afford to back off right now. now speaker boehner who said today inappropriate. others would say he's not us, he's a performer, he's an entertainer, he needs to cause controversy. that's how he gets listeners and gins things up. however he is a powerful voice in the company movement. he can cause problems and issues for the party. in the 2008 election there were 70 million women voters, 60 million male voters. simple math there. and barack obama won 56% to 43% among women. they essentially split obama and mccain the male vote. >> women pick the winners. they absolutely pick the winners. that's why you see the democrats so all over this. i mean, this is just manna from heaven for them. in the last three months all four of the republican candidates except for ron paul have seen their numbers among women fall. >> and it becomes, look, this is an election about the economy. this is an election
't know the answers to them. the brokered convention, i i mean, even michael steel that was saying on friday he thought that's where we were going to end up wrrn gingrich may have his own motives for pushing for something like that, and the extraordinary moment, though, but it's -- i don't think for gingrich or any of the pundits it's about him winning the nomination, but what is the back burn that may be machiavellian going on here. >> every juniorist at this table started to salivate when you use that term. >> absolutely. >> everyone in the press wants one. >> secondly, you know, if newt gingrich is not winning anything and he can't even win osd of his home state of georgia, why doesn't the press just ignore him or minimize mihm or not pay attention to them as opposed this constant psychoanalyze of why newt refuses to get out of the race, and his ego. >> he is still collecting dell fwats. this does affect romney's total and could affect that brokered convention. >> i want you to give us your analytic take on why there is this -- i should say obsession among journalists with what
a brokered convention. when you hear that, what do you think? that's michael steel who used to be the chairman obviously. >> i like michael steel. >> oh, no. whenever someone starts, i like -- i'm going to write that down as one of my phrases, i like. >> bless his heart, i hope you don't buzz me on this. >> you know what that means, chip. >> we know what's coming. this is not good for the party, to go through a brokered convention. i don't think that's what chairman steel's goal was. i think it was make the process a little longer. the last 20 years the nomination's been over in one or two or three states. now we have this very long process but usually we would be good. then we added super pacs to it so no longer do you win states to get momentum to stay in the race. now you just get one or two contributors to write really big checks and you can stay in the whole way and ultimately that may not be good for our nominee. now mitt romney is using it if he's the nominee to his advantage. senator santorum has used this time to his advantage to build a great organization that a lo
in the middle of march when mccain won texas and ohio. >> when michael steel said he did that intentionally, that he thought sort of leading up to a brokered convention made it high drama, i'm sort of quoting him. >> look, he was wanting to build excitement. look at what happens. >> it's not everywhere but in some cases. also a look at the conservative. romney's positions on the issues. two conservatives say 10%. 50% say he's not conservative enough. that's certainly sticking. >> we always look for historical pair parallels. in 1980 ronald regan was running against george h.w. bush. people were asking former president gerald ford to consider stepping back in the race. the point is not this that mitt romney or rick santorum or ronald regan. ronald regan wasn't ronald regan at this point. we continue to look at these guys struggling to win over voters. put that in context. it doesn't mean each one of these guys is absolutely awful and will lose to obama. >> history is always interesting. historically my knee jerk reaction is the disaffected will fall in line once there is a candidate. >> and
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)